Lindsay A Gressard1, Monica H Swahn2, Andra Teten Tharp3. 1. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia. Electronic address: lagressard@gmail.com. 2. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia. 3. Division of Violence Prevention, CDC, Atlanta, Georgia.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: One of ten U.S. high school students is a victim of adolescent dating violence (ADV). Understanding ADV risk factors guides prevention efforts; however, research examining community- and societal-level risk factors is scant. Societal gender inequality is a known risk factor for violence against women, but has yet to be explored in relation to ADV. This study aims to determine whether the Gender Inequality Index (GII) correlates with levels of physical and sexual ADV victimization across U.S. states. METHODS: State-representative prevalence rates of self-reported physical and sexual ADV victimization were obtained from the 2013 Youth Risk Behavior Survey. The state GII includes five indicators: (1) maternal mortality; (2) adolescent birth rate; (3) government representation; (4) educational attainment; and (5) labor force participation. Pearson correlation coefficients determined the association between physical and sexual ADV victimization, the GII, and GII indicators. Analyses were conducted in August 2014. RESULTS: Among U.S. states, the prevalence of physical ADV victimization in 2013 ranged from 7.0% to 14.8%, and the prevalence of sexual ADV victimization ranged from 7.8% to 13.8%. The GII was significantly associated with the state prevalence of female physical ADV victimization (r=0.48, p<0.01) but not female sexual ADV victimization. Neither physical nor sexual male ADV victimization was associated with the GII. CONCLUSIONS: This exploratory study suggests that gender inequality may be a societal-level risk factor for female physical ADV victimization. As ADV prevention strategies are implemented at the state level, further research examining the effect of gender inequality on ADV is needed. Published by Elsevier Inc.
INTRODUCTION: One of ten U.S. high school students is a victim of adolescent dating violence (ADV). Understanding ADV risk factors guides prevention efforts; however, research examining community- and societal-level risk factors is scant. Societal gender inequality is a known risk factor for violence against women, but has yet to be explored in relation to ADV. This study aims to determine whether the Gender Inequality Index (GII) correlates with levels of physical and sexual ADV victimization across U.S. states. METHODS: State-representative prevalence rates of self-reported physical and sexual ADV victimization were obtained from the 2013 Youth Risk Behavior Survey. The state GII includes five indicators: (1) maternal mortality; (2) adolescent birth rate; (3) government representation; (4) educational attainment; and (5) labor force participation. Pearson correlation coefficients determined the association between physical and sexual ADV victimization, the GII, and GII indicators. Analyses were conducted in August 2014. RESULTS: Among U.S. states, the prevalence of physical ADV victimization in 2013 ranged from 7.0% to 14.8%, and the prevalence of sexual ADV victimization ranged from 7.8% to 13.8%. The GII was significantly associated with the state prevalence of female physical ADV victimization (r=0.48, p<0.01) but not female sexual ADV victimization. Neither physical nor sexual male ADV victimization was associated with the GII. CONCLUSIONS: This exploratory study suggests that gender inequality may be a societal-level risk factor for female physical ADV victimization. As ADV prevention strategies are implemented at the state level, further research examining the effect of gender inequality on ADV is needed. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Authors: Emily F Rothman; Renee M Johnson; Robin Young; Janice Weinberg; Deborah Azrael; Beth E Molnar Journal: J Urban Health Date: 2011-04 Impact factor: 3.671
Authors: Vangie A Foshee; Heath Luz McNaughton Reyes; Susan T Ennett; Chirayath Suchindran; Jasmine P Mathias; Katherine J Karriker-Jaffe; Karl E Bauman; Thad S Benefield Journal: J Adolesc Health Date: 2010-10-15 Impact factor: 5.012
Authors: Elizabeth Miller; Daniel J Tancredi; Heather L McCauley; Michele R Decker; Maria Catrina D Virata; Heather A Anderson; Brian O'Connor; Jay G Silverman Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2013-07 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: David A Wolfe; Claire Crooks; Peter Jaffe; Debbie Chiodo; Ray Hughes; Wendy Ellis; Larry Stitt; Allan Donner Journal: Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med Date: 2009-08
Authors: Laura Kann; Steve Kinchen; Shari L Shanklin; Katherine H Flint; Joseph Kawkins; William A Harris; Richard Lowry; Emily O'Malley Olsen; Tim McManus; David Chyen; Lisa Whittle; Eboni Taylor; Zewditu Demissie; Nancy Brener; Jemekia Thornton; John Moore; Stephanie Zaza Journal: MMWR Suppl Date: 2014-06-13
Authors: Alexander W Pastuszak; Evan P Wenker; Peggy B Smith; Allyssa Abacan; Dolores J Lamb; Larry I Lipshultz; Ruth Buzi Journal: Am J Mens Health Date: 2016-02-04
Authors: Belén Sanz-Barbero; Consuelo Corradi; Laura Otero-García; Alba Ayala; Carmen Vives-Cases Journal: Int J Public Health Date: 2018-08-04 Impact factor: 3.380
Authors: Jessica B Lewis; Tami P Sullivan; Meghan Angley; Tamora Callands; Anna A Divney; Urania Magriples; Derrick M Gordon; Trace S Kershaw Journal: Aggress Behav Date: 2016-05-02 Impact factor: 2.917
Authors: Erika M Redding; María Teresa Ruiz-Cantero; José Fernández-Sáez; Marta Guijarro-Garvi Journal: Gac Sanit Date: 2016-10-26 Impact factor: 2.139